For the first time... apprehension

[Eridanis]

Just a reminder to keep personal attacks out of this (or any) thread, and to keep on topic... thanks!

 

[Aust Diamondew]

The core game continues to drift further and further from its Tolkienesque roots; the beautifully simple and recognizable foundation upon which world's can be molded from the DM's mind. In the place of that elegance is an almost forced mythology, with Tieflings... which should always be a DMs option... presented from the outset as a base race.

1) Tolkien I don't think was the primary inspiration for D&D, and LotR is a bad example of how to run a D&D game (as most books are).
2) Tolkien is okay but I like many other fantasy novelist better.
3) You complain about them forcing a mythology on you when;
A) D&D has always done that, D&D has created an enormously complex mythology, which I largely ignore.
B) You previously state that you want them force Tolkienesque mythology on us.

 

[scruffygrognard]

Blah, blah, blah... there are a lot of threads about this stuff elsewhere on these forums. I disagree with most of your objections, but I suppose you have a right to your opinion. I just think you need to give it a chance before you get your back up about this.

Adembroski started this thread in a pretty innocuous manner, stating that they might be overreacting and looking for others thoughts on the matter. You sure came back with an obnoxious reply.

I guess Morris' plea for civility has gone unnoticed...

 

[Sunderstone]

That is a bit harsh. One thing that roleplaying has working against it is lack of new blood. It has to keep veterans like us happy AND find a way to get 14 year olds playing it. The game needs new blood. D&D IS competing with WOW.

In the annoying WoWspeak forum language "I lolz'ed in real life to this" followed by "Epic Fail".


D&D cant compete with WoW in the teen market. The mere video game action junkie aspect is enough to steer many teens away from pouring over the pages of textbooks. The computer age wins. Period.

Im not saying all teens are like this by a longshot but I would hazard a guess that market research would likley agree.

With that said, from all I have seen, 4e is not trying to be a pen and paper WOW, nor could it compete with WOW if it did. D&D needs to flex its own strengths against computer gaming. Namely, that is story telling, encounter scenes, back ground, fluff and the like. So far, it seems that is exactly what WOTC is doing.

Flex all they want, it will be a valiant attempt to kill the modern day high tech soldier with a blunderbuss of old. In the end, the modern day soldier will reload his submachine gun and recalibrate the laser sight while standing over the body of the blunderbuss carrying militia.
Hence the "Epic Fail" part.

 

[Jack99]

Why is anyone surprised they're trying to ride the success of WoW? Hasbro doesn't care about people who have been around as long as you have, let alone the grognards who cut their teeth on OD&D like me. They want to market to 14 year olds, or people with the minds of 14 year olds. The only influences these twinks have are MMO's and anime, since most of them are functionally illiterate. When you say Lord of the Rings they might think of the Peter Jackson movies, maybe. Expect more big eyes and stupid hairdos in the art too, even worse than the "punk" look of 3.X.

But I'm just a grumpy old grognard, what do I know? This day was bound to come sooner or later. The murder of Dragon magazine and the new subscription scam mark the passing of an age. It'll be called D&D, but it sure as hell won't feel like D&D to me.

Twink? I resent that.. I earned my own gear and levels myself, thank you very much. Besides, linking twinking and WoW is funny, since WoW pretty much prevents twinking with level minimums on all items.

Either way, not only are you grumpy, but you are being rude to a lot of people.

4e will have very few similarities with WoW, aside from all the stuff that WoW stole FROM DnD. Based on your statements, I doubt you have played any WoW, or at least for long. Therefore, take it from me, the only thing about 4e who seems to have been strongly influenced by WoW, is the art (Based on Races and Classes). And seriously, if you refuse to give a great system a chance because you don't like the art, well, that says more about you than about the system.

Cheers,

 

[Holy Bovine]

Twink? I resent that.. I earned my own gear and levels myself, thank you very much. Besides, linking twinking and WoW is funny, since WoW pretty much prevents twinking with level minimums on all items.

Either way, not only are you grumpy, but you are being rude to a lot of people.

4e will have very few similarities with WoW, aside from all the stuff that WoW stole FROM DnD. Based on your statements, I doubt you have played any WoW, or at least for long. Therefore, take it from me, the only thing about 4e who seems to have been strongly influenced by WoW, is the art (Based on Races and Classes). And seriously, if you refuse to give a great system a chance because you don't like the art, well, that says more about you than about the system.

Cheers,

Whew! Thanks Jack99 - you said what I wanted to say in a much more polite fashion. I agree with your assessment.

 

[Gundark]

I'm WAY behind the times here....


...I get the impression that this edition is inspired not by a long standing role playing tradition nor a century of fantasy literature, as previous versions were. This seems to be the pen and paper son of Everquest, Utima Online, and World of Warcraft.

Yeah we've talked this one to death already... I don't see the a big connection myself. I would argue what is so wrong with D&D borrowing great ideas from other games/forms of media?

 

[M.L. Martin]

The core game continues to drift further and further from its Tolkienesque roots; the beautifully simple and recognizable foundation upon which world's can be molded from the DM's mind.

Is this where I insert my usual grumbling about how the 'Tolkienesque roots' of D&D are nothing of the sort, and aside from a few race, class, and monster options and the 'party' structure, the game bears more resemblance to Howard's, Leiber's, and Moorcock's tales of brigands, ne'er-do-wells and anti-heroes seeking wealth and power than to the Professor's tales of heroism and self-sacrifice with a wistful/tragic undertone?

In fact, in Tolkien's work, 'taking stuff' or trying to do so often causes more problems than it solves (Smaug's hoard, the Ring, the Silmarils).

 

[Rykion]

I get the impression that this edition is inspired not by a long standing role playing tradition nor a century of fantasy literature, as previous versions were. This seems to be the pen and paper son of Everquest, Utima Online, and World of Warcraft.

All of those games are heavily based on that century of fantasy literature and on D&D itself. So even if 4e D&D is basing itself on MMORPG's, which I don't believe it is, it is still true to its roots.

The core game continues to drift further and further from its Tolkienesque roots; the beautifully simple and recognizable foundation upon which world's can be molded from the DM's mind. In the place of that elegance is an almost forced mythology, with Tieflings... which should always be a DMs option... presented from the outset as a base race.

D&D has always had multiple fantasy influences. The Tolkien inspirations were mainly the playable races and the concept of an adventuring party instead of a solo hero/pair of heroes. Most of the monsters in the Monster manual didn't come from Tolkien. The magic system didn't come from Tolkien. The concept of killing things and taking their stuff didn't come from Tolkien.

Half-orcs are so uncommon and mistrusted in my campaign worlds that no one ever plays them. I'm used to not using all the PHB playable races.

Further, we have roles which seem to mirror the common class roles in our pure-combat/no-role-play online RPGs. Might as well have cut to the chase and renamed the Fighter class "Tank".

The class roles in D&D have always been pretty much based on their usefulness in a fight or an adventure. Non-combat roles are pretty much defined by skills rather than class. The concept of a "tank" in online games came from the D&D fighter to begin with. I can't think of an edition of D&D where a fighter wasn't, generally speaking, a high HP, high AC, low damage dealing at high levels, character who mainly covers the squishier party members.

Power Progression... gone are the days when a world can be defined by its prestige classes, another of the brilliant additions of 3rd edition. Now we are stuck on this destined path where we must reach a given level no matter what organization or devotion we wish to join with. There always were level issues, but they were adjustable... emphasizing the prestige of those with high requirements.

I never cared for prestige classes so won't miss them if they are gone. Class options and multi-classing have always seemed a better fit to me.

4th edition skills focus on encounters... no use rope, no tailor... in other words, you're a video game character now. Stop your role playing, damn it!

As an RPG system, encounters have always been the focus of D&D. I'm sure that the 4th ed rules will work for social encounters, and background skills that aren't used regularly in encounters can be part of the character's written background.

 

[rjdafoe]

I'm WAY behind the times here.
So I've spent most of the day pouring over the info available (surprisingly little, actually).

I think it needs to be said, because I keep reading people saying that there is little information about 4E. I have to disagree. There has been alot of flavor information. In a developer blog (the old ones, not the Gleemax ones), there was a statement that I think most people seem to forget:

Star Wars Saga Edition and Tome of Battle is a preview of 4th edition.

It is so important, that I think it should be repeated:

Star Wars Saga Edition and Tome of Battle is a preview of 4th edition.

You want details? There they are. Read the books and think of tweaking and fantasy elements.